Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5430970 — Cleanliness at 3 Gartrell Road, Wigram, Christchurch 8042
Published 7 May 2026 · Application 5430970
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
Order
- Aimee Jean O'Leary must pay Accommodation Centre Limited As Agent Of X Peng $4,236.24 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- The applicant attended the hearing by video link. The respondent did not attend.
- The applicant states that the tenancy ended on 27 November pursuant to a 21- day notice issued by the tenant, which expired on that date.
- The applicant seeks the following amounts: a) $2,650.46 for cleaning costs; b) $2,070.00 for wall repairs and painting; c) $555.45 for lawn and garden work; and d) $212.47 for lock replacement.
- The applicant also advises that there is a credit due to the tenant of $245.14, representing the difference between the rent arrears and the bond monies already received from the Bond Centre. Is the respondent liable for the cleaning, gardening and rubbish removal invoices?
- I have reviewed the photographic evidence provided by the applicant. I am satisfied that the premises were left well short of the standard required under section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act, namely the obligation to remove all rubbish from the tenancy at its conclusion and to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- The cleaning costs claimed are at the higher end and include amounts for curtain cleaning and deodorising. The landlord states that the tenant kept a dog at the premises and also smoked inside the property, necessitating additional cleaning and deodorising. The photographic evidence also shows the curtains to have been heavily soiled. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the cleaning costs claimed were reasonably incurred and are accordingly awarded.
- The applicant also seeks $555.45 for gardening and rubbish removal. I am satisfied that these costs were reasonably incurred as a result of the tenant’s breach of the obligations arising under the same section referred to above, and this amount is likewise awarded.
Is the respondent liable for the wall repairs and painting costs?
- The applicant further seeks compensation of $2,070.00 for wall repairs and painting. I have reviewed the photographs together with the invoice from the tradesperson. While I accept that some of the damage to the walls was likely caused carelessly or intentionally, in breach of the tenant’s obligations under section 40(2)(a), a significant portion of the work depicted in the photographs appears reasonably attributable to fair wear and tear. Further, the extent of the work and the areas covered by the invoice do not entirely fall within the tenant’s liability under section 40(2)(a). In the circumstances, it is appropriate to award one-half of the amount claimed.
Is the respondent liable for the lock replacement costs?
- The applicant also seeks $212.47 for lock replacement. The applicant states that, at the conclusion of the tenancy, they were unable to contact the tenant and, upon attending the property, found it unsecured and no keys had been returned. This constitutes a breach of the tenant’s obligations under section 40(1)(e)(iv), which requires a tenant at the conclusion of the tenancy to return all keys and security devices. I am satisfied that the replacement costs were reasonably incurred and accordingly award this amount. The filing fee:
- As the applicant has been substantially successful, I also award the filing fee.